G. A. Cohen on Self-Ownership, Property, and ... - Tom G. Palmer

Palmer - <strong>Cohen</strong> on Property and Equality 233what <strong>Cohen</strong> is concerned to show is that unequal marginal productivity,under such conditions, will not result in an unequal distributionof the joint product.) <strong>Cohen</strong> assumes, like Rawls, that all incomeis jointly produced and that the distribution of the joint product is tobe the result of some sort of agreement among the joint owners.Where <strong>Cohen</strong> differs fiom Rawls is in granting, for ihe sake of his attemptedrefutation of Nozick, that the parties to the agreement knowwhat their productive abilities are and have property in those naturaltalents. Joint ownership of external resources means that each ownerhas a full veto right over any proposed distribution of the joint product,because each has a veto right over the disposition of the factorinputs, other than labor, that contribute to the production of the jointproduct. Thus, <strong>Cohen</strong> writes that “I entertained an alternative toNozick’s ‘up for grabs’ hypothesis about the external world, to wit,that it is jointly owned by everyone, with each having a veto over itsprospective use. And I showed that final equality of condition is assuredwhen that egalitarian hypothesis about ownership of externalresources is conjoined with the thesis of self-ownership” (14). Carehlexamination demonstrates, however, that <strong>Cohen</strong>’s arguments do notshow that “final equality of condition is assured!’Cohet) (1995, 94) proposes that we consider a two-person world,populated by “Able” and ‘‘hfirrn,” in which there is an asymmetry inthe productive capabilities of the. two parties, who are jointly owners ofall available external resources. In this situation, “Each owns himself andboth jointly own everything else.” <strong>Cohen</strong> (ibid., 95) then describesbetween the two parties is impossible:I three cases in which b.ar@g.i. Able cannot pmduce.per day what% needed for one person for aday, so Able and Infirm both die.ii. Able can produce enough or more than enough for one person, butnot enough for two, Infirm lets Able produce what he can, since onlyspite or envy would lead him nor to. Able lives and Infirm dies.iii. Able can produce just enough to sustain both himself and Infirm.So Infirm forbids him to produce unless he produces that much. Ableconsequently does, and both live at subsistence.In these three cases there is no surplus over which to bargain. Thetwo cases in which bargaining over a surplus might take place are describedas follows: